For many years, numerous scientists have been studying de-extinction. This is the process of creating or recreating an organism which is a member of or resembles and extinct species. Recently scientists have started figuring out methods to perform this task. According to Nathaniel Rich’s “The Mammoth Cometh” in the next four to nine years, it is very likely that scientists will re-create the passenger pigeon. Ryan Phelan clearly showed his opinion when he mentioned “De-extinction went from concept to potential reality right before our eyes.”(The Mammoth Cometh.) While trying to understand this concept, at first it is very easy to think of this as a good idea. It seems like it would be breathtaking to see animals that have gone extinct roam …show more content…
Animals can sense when there is something wrong with their baby, and a lot of species will leave it to die if they can sense something is off about it. It seems that the risk factors of this entire process are kept quiet, and because the population has become so technologically advanced in the last twenty years people believe that this is something that can be done without repercussions. In this situation specifically, people are forming an opinion on de extinction without understanding all of the pros and cons on the topic. Many people do not understand quite how much this entire process would cost, and how much time it would take. For example, the California Condor is a large bird that had gone extinct, besides a small number left in captivity. Even though scientists had 100% of the DNA needed to re-create this specie it was still an extremely difficult …show more content…
In order to re-create one animal it would cause more than fifty common animals to be put under a tremendous amount of stress. Not only would this process put the animals under a lot of stress, but also the danger behind de-extinction is a huge risk factor. If an animal that once roamed the planet was brought back and placed into an ecosystem that is thought to belong to the specific animal, there is a possibility of destroying that ecosystem. Since everything in the ecosystem runs off of a pyramid scheme, one small change can very easily cause everything to collapse. The entire process would take an outrageous amount of years, not to mention the amount of money that would be spent, and this still cannot ensure that the lives of these animals are safe. It seems that society feels bad for the damage that has been inflicted on the planet, but it is not possible to reverse it. Overall, the outcome of de-extinction is way more damaging than helpful to the environment, and animals, therefore it should not be done at
Humans have driven many animals extinct, but should we bring them back is the question. Geneticists, biologists, conservationists and ethicists gathered to discuss the controversies. Some people say in doing this we are playing God, while others say we did by killing them. Other scientist say that it may be beneficial because it will add biodiversity, and medicinal properties back to the ecosystem. It is only possible to bring species back from around 10 thousand years ago. Recently scientists have vastly improved the cloning process. We can now coax adult animal cells into any type of cell, including eggs and sperm, then manipulating them into full-fledged embryos, which has led to the ideas and developments of reviving many other species including mammoths, frogs and
The Zoological Society of London (ZSL) breeds Globally Endangered animals and then introduces them back into the wild. ZSL states that the main reasons of extinct species are: Poaching, Pollution, Climate change, and Over Population of the human race due to the need of homes, shops, hospitals and other amenities. The rain forest once encompassed four billion acres of Earth has now depleted to 2.5 billion acres of Earth within a few hundred years. Wetlands have also been destroyed and the provide drinking water for wildlife and humans. Maybe the solution to this problem is not locking away the animals that are endangered, but cracking down on the destruction of habitats. Maybe there should be places where property is restricted ...
The role of ethics in modern genetic species revival is an arguable topic which takes on different stances depending upon who the author’s audiences are. In this piece, the author’s primary audience would be people who share the belief that it is ethical to revive such species. These people could include scientist, conservationists, and/or government officials because of their direct correlation to efforts similar to those that the author describes. Though there are people share the author’s beliefs, the secondary audience to this piece would include those who disagree with the author’s claim. People such as scientists, and government officials could also fall into this category, as they may disagree with the author’s claim. As a tertiary audience, the general pubic could be considered because of either their agreement, disagreement, or neutrality on the author’s claim that it is the ethical responsibility of humans to revive species which have become extinct directly due to human influence.
While some people may think that they’re “protecting” the animals from extinction, that’s not something that they should be doing. That is a job for zoos and animal protection facilities. People should just visit the zoo if they want to see the animals that much
This shows that the populous is in favor of the restoration of extinct species as it would bring about a great change in the fight against extinction as a whole.
Years ago, species such as the Pyrenean Ibex, Passenger Pigeon, and the Wooly Mammoth used to roam the very same earth that we humans walk today. These species, along with many others have gone extinct over the course of time and now only fossils remain. However, Scientists are using biotechnology in an attempt to bring these species back from the dead. This process is known as de-extinction. De-Extinction, also known as resurrection biology, is the scientific process of resurrecting species that have died out, or gone extinct (Britannica). Scientists are using three different techniques in their attempt to resurrect these species which includes breeding back, genetic engineering, cloning.
Thirty years ago, congress passed a law to protect animals that are at risk of becoming extinct. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 outlined the responsibilities of the government and citizens concerning these animals. It requires that every five years, species are evaluated, and it is decided whether they are okay, endangered, whose population is so low that it is in danger of becoming extinct, or threatened, who are not in as much danger, but whose population is small enough for concern. Threatened and endangered species are then placed on a list, the “red list,” and closely monitored until conditions improve and population numbers increase enough that they can be removed. But how are these animals monitored and how is it possible to get them to the point that they can be removed from the “red list”? To find the answers, many conservationists and scientists have turned to technology. Technology has enabled scientists to help animals reproduce, improve their habitat, and protect them. There are a few disadvantages and opposing viewpoints to this issue. Is it worth the money to use these technologies to save a species from becoming extinct? And more importantly, is it right for humans to intervene with nature? From cloning to satellites, technology has helped save many species from extinction, but is it worth it?
...leaving a little portion of land to the animals is not that bad. The reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone has been very beneficial to the ecosystem. We tried to eliminate this species but in the end, we need to ask ourselves the question, do we really need to eliminate another species based on our own biases and fears? We need to look past personal gain, and leave nature to take its course.
A successful de-extinction effort may give people the false, and dangerous, impression that scientists have ‘solved’ all of our environmental problems" (Counterclaim para 12). Overall, the author has evidence from a variety of different and credible resources that does very good job of supporting their
An example from the text states, “The birds went extinct in 1914 due to overhunting.” Their cause of extinction was overhunting, so the hunters will likely kill them off again. Another passage says, “But we have to remind ourselves that extinction, for now and likely for the near future is final, the end, forever.” Even though we bring them back, they will most likely go extinct again due to the reasons they went extinct before (overhunting, disease, etc.). If they will just go extinct again, what is the point?
Who wouldn’t want to see a Wooly Mammoth traipsing across the tundra, or see witness and laugh at the odd sized Dodo Bird? Although the spectacle of witnessing such animals is certainly fascinating, it is this attitude that makes the practice of de-extinction, in my opinion, morally incorrect. Reviving a species solely for entertainment purposes is inhumane. And due to the fact that releasing a revived species into the wild could be disastrous, the animals would have to reside in zoos, where humans could gawk at them for the rest of their lives. And if they escaped, well, we might have a Jurassic Park situation in our
I would argue that at the very least, there needs to be some form of triage implemented. The way the Endangered Species Act is currently allocating funds is mediocre at best and has many flaws. There is no denying there are limited resources so that makes efficient use of them even more important. Each of the systems of triage outlined in this paper have valid points and problematic components. Elements of each system could be combined into a nicely working plan that recovers the greatest number of species on a limited budget.
II. Support 1: Indirect extinction is caused mainly by alterations done to the animals' environment either naturally or due to human's negative effects on the animals' habitat. A. The extinction of St. Paul mammoth was due to scarcity of fresh water in the St. Paul island in Alaska, leading to their extinction. Humans don't have a role in their extinction as there was no evidence of human presence in this island then.
So what is an endangered species? What is an extinct species? What has happened to cause them to become endangered or extinct? What needs to be done in order to save the endangered species from becoming extinct? Can anything be done to save them? The answer to most of these questions is not known by everyone. With all the attention that this subject gets from the government or groups that fight for the environment, it gets the same amount of disregard from the public. Many people want to help or donate but very few of those actually follow through. This is a very important subject that needs to be taken serious by the public. It needs their full attention because they are the ones that can truly make a change. People really don’t understand the concept of extinction. If somethi...
Any species which fall into the categories vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered are considered to be at risk of extinction. Robert Redford said “I think the environment should be put in the category of our national security defense of our resource’s because it’s just as important as defense abroad otherwise what is there to defend?” People should all take the environment more seriously and protect the future for those to come. It’s our responsibility to ensure that the children to come may enjoy all of earth’s beauty, and not through old issues of National Geographic’s.